Sitting of 31 May 1877

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Irish Land Act (1870), nominated.
SUPPLY — considered in Committee — CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—Class II.
PUBLIC BILLS — Resolution in Committee — Ordered — First Reading—Wine and Beerhouse Act (1869) Amendment [177].
Second Reading—Canal Boats [162]; Colonial Fortifications [174]; General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act (1862) Amendment [164].
Committee — Report — Public Works Loans [145]; Local Government (Gas) Provisional Orders (Penrith, &c.) [156]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Altrincham, &c) [157].
Considered as amended — Customs, Inland Revenue, and Savings Banks [143].
Third Reading — (£5,900,000) Consolidated Fund, and passed.
Withdrawn—Vaccination Law (Penalties) [97].

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  THE EASTERN QUESTION — THE DESPATCHES.
  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. SANDFORDrose to call attention to the omission from the Blue Book No. 2, on Turkey, of all mention of the conversation between Lord Salisbury and the Due Decazes at Paris, and between Lord Salisbury and Prince Bismarck at Berlin; and also to call attention to the proceedings of the Conference at Constantinople; and to move for the production of Copies of any Minute of the aforesaid conversations at Paris and

  1133
  Berlin. The hon. Gentleman observed that in the present state of the Eastern Question they could hardly overrate the importance of any information that they could obtain upon this subject. Everybody must feel that Prince Bismarck at Berlin held the key of the position. It might be of national interest or national importance that these conversations should be suppressed, and if it were so, all he could say was that it was most unfortunate. The suppression of these conversations had given rise to alarming rumours. It was generally believed that Prince Bismarck had confided to Lord Salisbury that Germany was about to attack France. He (Mr. Sandford) believed that no such communication was made. He did not believe it was the wish of Prince Bismarck to attack Franco, whatever might be the wish of the military party in Germany. And he was sure that Prince Bismarck was much too prudent a statesman to have stated to Lord Salisbury that he wished to attack France. The suppression of these conversations had given rise to all the more alarm, because conversations at Vienna and at Rome had been published. They had learned from Rome that they were unwilling to give any port on the Adriatic; and they had learned from Vienna that they objected to the Russian occupation of the Christian Provinces of Turkey; and the impression, therefore, left on the public mind was that the conversations with Prince Bismarck must have been of a most mysterious and alarming character. The special Envoy of England had been instructed by the Foreign Secretary to make the extraordinary proposition that Bulgaria should be occupied by a French Force. If the Foreign Secretary had only looked at the map he would have seen that north of the Danube there was a country called Roumania, and Roumania was ruled over by a Prince of the House of Hohenzollern; and he might have further ascertained that the one political feeling and instinct of the people of Roumania was in favour of France. It was not, therefore, surprising that a proposal to place a French Force on the south side of the Danube was scouted equally at Paris and Berlin. He had asked Her Majesty's Government on a previous occasion, whether any step had been taken for the neutralization of Roumania, and the answer was that there was no Treaty
  1134
  stipulation for the neutralization of Roumania. That was, no doubt, correct; but one of the Articles of the Treaty of Paris contained a provision that no armed intervention could take place without previous agreement between the Great Powers. The object of creating the State of Roumania was to place a neutral State between Russia and Turkey, and the first duty of diplomacy should have been to neutralize the territory of Roumania. They now heard that Roumania had declared her independence, and he should like to know what were the views of Her Majesty's Government and the other guaranteeing Powers with regard to this declaration of independence. We found that at the very moment when the Russian Ambassador was urging this country to sign a Protocol in the interests of peace, Russia was signing a Convention with Roumania with reference to the carrying on of war. He should like to know whether Turkey was to be regarded as an independent or as a dependent and protected Power? Not only among orators on the platform, but among Members of Her Majesty's Government, he found very conflicting views on that point. In all the earlier despatches of the Foreign Secretary up to the time when ho learnt what the feeling of his employers was, they found him urging that Turkey was an independent Power, and impressing on other Powers the necessity of maintaining its independence. But after lie had received certain deputations, Lord Derby took a different tone. On the 21st of September he wrote a despatch requiring Turkey, in the name of the Queen, to punish the perpetrators of the massacres in Bulgaria. If the victims of those massacres had been English subjects, Lord Derby might have had some right, in the name of the Queen, to demand the punishment of the offenders, for it was a well-known principle of International Law that one country had a right to demand from another an equal administration of its law as regarded the subjects of the complaining Power. But he had yet to learn if Turkey was to be considered as an independent country, on what grounds we could call on her to inflict punishment for acts committed by one portion of her subjects upon another. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking in Lancashire, had said they were bound to treat Turkey as

  1135
  an independent State, such as Italy or Spain; but in a subsequent speech in that House, the right hon. Gentleman declared that we stood in a different position towards the Christian Provinces of Turkey from what we did to other countries, and that we ought to use our best endeavours to obtain good government for those Provinces. He should like to know from his right hon. Friend on what grounds he rested the right of this country to interfere. Was it on the Treaty of Paris? The 9th Article of that Treaty—the only Article referring to that point — stated that the Sultan gave his Christian subjects their privileges of his own free will, and it was expressly laid down that no foreign Power was to have a right of interference in the matter. The Secretary of State for War lately told them that the Treaty of Paris was still in existence, and that they were bound by it. A Treaty in diplomacy, however, was not like an Act of Parliament in Westminster Hall. It was rather like a lady in society, who, when her character had been pretty generally impugned, was not held entitled to the same amount of respect as she otherwise would enjoy. The Foreign Secretary himself said that Treaties were not eternal, and could only be maintained as long as circumstances permitted. But although we had no special right to interfere on behalf of the Christian subjects of the Porte, we nevertheless had the common right to interfere in the government of Turkey which every nation had when its neighbours endangered the general peace and tranquillity of Europe. He believed that the Government of Turkey was intolerable alike for its Mahomedan and its Christian subjects, and the great mistake made in the Autumn agitation was that too exclusive stress was laid on the grievances of the Christians. He thought it would have been far better had the Great Powers commenced where they ended, and when first the insurrection broke out between Bosnia and Herzegovina to have told Turkey that her Government was intolerable, and that if she did not reform it within a certain space of time united Europe would be called on to take some steps to put an end to the misgovernment of the Provinces. That would have been far better than entering upon a Conference, the proceedings of which it was obvious could
  1136
  only end in a fiasco. Nothing could have been more absurd than for ten or a dozen Foreign Ambassadors to have gathered round a table to draw up a Reform Bill for a country whose language they could not speak and whose customs they did not understand? It would have been the interest and policy of England, if she were to interfere with the Government of Turkey, to urge on Austria to come forward as a great Slav Power. No doubt, there would be great difficulties in the way in reference to the Magyars; but the interests of 35,000,000 of people ought not to be sacrificed to Magyar jealousy. If Austria had known that she could have counted upon England, he believed she would have decided to take some important step. If we did not adopt that course, what other policy had we to pursue but a policy of waiting? We had no right to coerce Turkey without first warning her, and up to the present moment the only warning she had received from us was that she was not to be coerced. We could not coerce Turkey as the ally of Russia, but as a member of the European concert. If we joined Russia, the only effect would be to destroy that Turkish Fleet which was the only effectual obstacle to the advance of Russia on Constantinople. Heaven forbid, however, that England should commit the blunder of a second Navarino In 1855 he was one of the few Members of that House who looked unfavourably on the Crimean War, believing it was undertaken for French rather than for English interests, and he had then thought it of comparatively small importance whether Constantinople was occupied by Russians or by Turks. But things had now changed. In 1855 our communications with India were carried on by the Cape of Good Hope; now they were carried on through the Suez Canal, and England could not look with the same indifference as formerly on the occupation of Constantinople by Russia. Some wished this country to adopt a policy of action and to occupy Crete or Gallipoli. But were we to occupy them as neutrals, or as friends of the Turks? If as friends of the Turks, it would be a declaration of war against Russia. If as neutrals, the Turks might object, and it would be a declaration of war against the Porte. There were difficulties and dangers in the present policy of isolation. Within

  1137
  a very short space of time, he believed, the Turks would be conquered both in Europe and in Asia; and that they would then be too happy to come to terms with Russia alone; and if this country took no part in the struggle, she would have no right to take part in the arrangements which would follow on its conclusion. He believed the Czar had no intention of occupying Constantinople; but if the war went on, there might be considerable difficulty in restraining a victorious Army. He believed in the moderation of the Czar, but not in that of a victorious Russian Army. Russia would probably expect the restoration of the territory in Bessa-rabia taken from her by the Treaty of Paris; perhaps, also, some part of Asia Minor. She might likewise possibly demand the passage of her Fleet through the Dardanelles, and that the Bulgarians should be governed by independent Rulers. Herzegovina and Bosnia might be added to Austria, and some small addition of territory given to Montenegro. The Sultan would retain the residue of his dominions, but only as a satrap of Russia. He believed in a crisis like the present, the responsibility for action should rest on the Executive Government of the country; but he would venture to ask Her Majesty's Ministers for an explicit declaration of their policy, and whether there was any truth in what he had read in the newspapers — namely, that Russia had proposed to this country a localization of the war, and that that proposition had not been accepted? He would remind the Government that a policy of frankness always commanded the respect of of the majority of the English nation, and that a policy of concealment was altogether opposed to their sympathies and generous instincts.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words " an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of any Minutes of the conversation between Lord Salisbury and the Due Decazes at Paris, and between Lord Salisbury and Prince Bismarck at Berlin,"—(Mr. San ford,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. BOURKEthought the House must be surprised, as certainly he was himself, at the speech which had just been delivered by his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend had invited a discussion upon certain points connected with foreign politics which were of a difficult and delicate character; and he believed the House would agree with him in thinking that it would be inexpedient for him to follow the hon. Member through the various topics which he had raised. So far as the neutrality of Roumania was concerned, he (Mr. Bourke) had already described to the House the position in which this country stood, and therefore it was unnecessary for him to dwell upon that topic. There could be no doubt that the neutrality of Roumania and the provisions of the Treaty of Paris had been infringed by Russia. With regard to interference in the internal affairs of Turkey, that was a subject which had been fully discussed in the House; but there was one point in connection with it which his hon. Friend appeared to have misunderstood. His hon. Friend had said that the Treaty of Paris absolutely precluded this, as well as any other country, from interfering with the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire. That, however, was an opinion which lie did not think any person fully conversant with the facts could hold to be sound. Under the Treaty of Paris, which had been called that evening the " common law right of interference " remained exactly where it was before, and one great proof of that was, that in 1859 the Earl of Malmesbury addressed to the Porte one of the strongest despatches ever written, calling attention to the condition of the Christian races under Ottoman rule, and stating unequivocally that this country would " insist "—that was the word used—upon the promises of the Sultan being carried out. Therefore, the right of interference not only existed theoretically since the Treaty of Paris, but had been acted upon by this country and acknowledged by the Porte. His hon. Friend who had raised this question at the present time had also said that the Conference at Constantinople was objectionable, because it would have been better to have told Turkey that she must reform herself, and that if she did not do so in a short time the European Powers would interfere; but it appeared to him that, for reasons

  1139
  which had been frequently urged in the discussion of this subject, it would have been extremely unwise for Her Majesty's Government to have adopted that course. His hon. Friend had likewise said that the difficulties of a policy of inaction were almost equal to those of a policy of action, and no doubt that observation was perfectly true; but that was precisely one of the reasons for refraining from saying what would be the policy of the Government in the future. That policy, as everybody must be aware, considering the present grave aspect of affairs, must be guided entirely by circumstances. Her Majesty's Government had no reason to suppose that either Russia or any other Power imagined, at this moment, that when the terms of peace came to be discussed they could be any other than Europe generally could accept. In other words, when those terms came to be considered, they would constitute a question for the Powers in general. The conversations between Lord Salisbury and Prince Bismarck at Berlin, and Lord Salisbury and the Due Decazes at Paris, to which his hon. Friend had referred, were strictly confidential, and Her Majesty's Government, which was guided in the matter solely by a regard for the public good, exercised its discretion in not publishing them. Had those conversations been, so to speak, of a public character, Prince Bismarck and the Duc Decazes probably would not have communicated their views to our Ambassador so freely as they had done. With regard to the publication of despatches generally, he thought Her Majesty's Government had certainly not erred on the side of withholding information. The present case, however, was exceptional, inasmuch as the communications made by Prince Bismarck and the Due Decazes to Lord Salisbury were intended for the British Government alone, and not for any other. In those circumstances, he hoped the House would not think him disrespectful, if he declined to give any further information on the subject. His hon. Friend had asked whether Russia had made a communication to Her Majesty's Government as to the localization of the war? In reply to that question, all he could say was that he did not know of any communication from the Russian Government of the nature which had been described.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he had no wish to enter upon a general discussion of the Eastern Question; but he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Sandford) had done good service in eliciting the statement from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that, in the event of peace being made, that peace must be a matter for European arrangement.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, that what he had desired to convey was this—that when the question of peace came to be discussed, it no doubt would be one which would concern Europe; and the European Powers would consider that they had a right to share in the deliberations respecting the future.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, there was, however, a question of more vital importance than that to which his hon. Friend the Member for Maldon had drawn attention. It would be in the recollection of the House that in the very able speech which they had heard from the Home Secretary before the Recess, there were certain limits laid down within which, it was said, English interests would be deemed to be at stake. The arguments of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to meet with general approval in the House on both sides, for the noble Lord the Member for the Radnor Boroughs, who had the distinguished honour of being Leader of the Opposition, when he spoke subsequently in the debate, said merely that he would not bind himself to the limit which had been laid down by the Home Secretary. Now, it was an important question whether we were in a position at the present moment to defend those interests. He did not believe that the most extreme humanitarian among us—he did not believe that ten men even of those who were at that moment assembled in Bingley Hall, where a right hon. Gentleman who had formerly retired from public life was now addressing 30,000 people, and inaugurating, he would not say the music and harmony, but probably the discord of the Liberal future—would deny that circumstances might arise in which it would be absolutely necessary for England, as far as she had the power, to step in and defend her interests in the East of Europe. The question was—Were we in a position to do that, and were the Government taking the steps necessary to defend English interests, should they in any way be assailed in the course of the present unhappy war?

  1141
  Efficiency and promptness were one and the same, and any interference on our part, in order to be efficient, must be prompt. Now, efficiency meant men and horses; it meant matériel, it meant transport, it meant organization. He would assume that we had the men; but our organization was a paper organization. When the Mobilization Scheme was laid on the Table of the House last year, it was of value mainly as showing not that we had our corps d'armée ready, but how they should be disposed of when ready, and as showing, in fact, the poverty of the land in that respect. It was a skeleton scheme, which required to be filled up. Now, to fill up such a skeleton scheme, not only were the elements he had mentioned required, but the important element of money was also necessary. Without asking for extra money, were the Government prepared to fill up the skeleton with flesh and blood? Now, what was the present state of our supplies? He held in his hand a War Office Circular which gave all the requirements of a corps d'armée numbering 35,000 men; and he believed it would be found that the state of our supplies was very far from what was there shown to be necessary. He believed that the stores we had were principally in one great arsenal, so that it would take a long time to get them out—that we were deficient in transport carts of all kinds, and especially in ambulance waggons of the latest pattern—that ammunition carts were wanting for both Infantry and Artillery—and he would ask whether it was true that Artillery battery waggons had been taken from the batteries and used for the supply of ammunition? Then, 11,000 horses were required for a corps d' armée of 35,000, but he believed that nothing at all approaching the number required was available at the present time. As regarded small arm ammunition, he was told we had not enough even for home consumption in time of peace. As regarded powder, we made something like 500 barrels a-year less than was annually expended, and although we had a supply of 300,000 barrels, yet it was scattered all over the world, and, therefore, to a large extent would not be available.
  THE O'DONOGHUE,rising to Order, asked the Speaker whether the matters which the noble Lord was discussing were within the scope of the Motion?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Main Question before the House was as to going into Committee of Supply, to which. an Amendment had been moved for Papers. That being the state of the case, undoubtedly the observations of the noble Lord were not relevant to the Amendment before the House.
  LORD ELCHOasked, whether any remarks on the general question as to the state of preparation we should be in if called upon to defend English interests would be out of place at that moment, or whether he ought to wait till the Question for going into Committee of Supply was again put?
  MR. SPEAKERobserved that the more convenient course was for the House to deal, in the first instance, with the Amendment actually before it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPHIC COMM UNICATION WITH LUNDY ISLAND.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. DILLWYNrose to call attention to the want of telegraph communication between Lundy Island and the mainland, and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is of national importance that such a communication should be established."
  He maintained that this was not a question of local, but of national interest, and urged that Government should undertake the work to which his Motion pointed without delay. Nearly all the Chambers of Commerce throughout the country were in favour of that work being proceeded with.
  MR. D. JENKINSseconded the Motion, submitting that the question of establishing communication between Lundy Island and the mainland was one not of mere local interest affecting the Bristol Channel, but of national importance affecting the shipping and commercial interests of the country generally. The Island was situated on a dangerous part of the coast and he could quite understand the telegraph being in winter the means of saving life and valuable property. During the worst part of the winter the mainland was totally obscured from the Island.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words

  1143
  "in the opinion of this House, it is of national importance that a telegraphic communication should be established between Lundy Island and the mainland,"—(Mr. Dillwyn,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. STEVENSONappealed to the Government in the name of the shipping interest to agree to the Motion. It was not a matter of importance only to the Bristol Channel, but it was of as much concern to Liverpool and the other ports on the West Coast, and even those on the North-east. This was entirely a national question, and he hoped the Government would so regard it.
  MR. WHITWELL,speaking on behalf of the Chambers of Commerce, joined in the appeal to the Government to advance the £5,000 or so, which was necessary to make the connection, and said that he knew there was a most anxious desire in Newcastle and the ports in the North that ships should be able on their arrival in the West to communicate with Lundy Island, and then to await orders.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he had expressed it to be his opinion, when a deputation from the Chambers of Commerce waited on him in reference to the subject, that they had assigned very powerful reasons in favour of establishing communication between Lundy Island and the mainland. He was still, he might add, in correspondence with the Chambers of Commerce on the matter, inasmuch as he had not yet received from them a reply to his last proposal in regard to it. He was, therefore, unable to say that the negotiations which had been in progress had finally broken down. If the Chambers of Commerce were in a position to lay down the wire, and to give a guarantee for its maintenance for the first few years, he had very little doubt that the communication could be made. Till he had a final answer to that proposal he could do no more than say he was fully alive to the importance of the subject. He felt, however, as the head of the Postal Telegraphic Department, that he was charged with the duty of seeing that no extension should take place which had not a fair chance of becoming remunerative, and lie did not believe that this extension
  1144
  promised to be remunerative; on the contrary, he thought it would involve a large annual expenditure. If, however, when the negotiations with the Chambers of Commerce came to a close, it appeared to them that the matter was of such very great practical importance as to justify them in making an application to some other Department of the Government more especially charged with the duty of prosecuting works of public advantage than the Post Office, he should throw no obstacle in the way of an appeal of that kind. He hoped, at the same time, the House would not press him to undertake a telegraphic extension which was not likely to be remunerative, owing to the extreme probability of the breakage of the cable.
  LORD ESLINGTONsaid, those who had charge of the commercial interests of this country would derive a certain amount of negative satisfaction from the answer of his noble Friend. He thought he saw some hesitation in the mind of the noble Lord, which gave him hope for the future. He (Lord Eslington) maintained that the question was really not a local one, inasmuch as it related to a place on a dangerous part of our coast, and the only place where the ships of all nations engaged in trade were likely to find a refuge. If on inquiry it could be shown, as he believed it could, that the establishment of telegraphic communication with the Island would not be unremunerative, he was of opinion that the Government ought to look favourably upon the proposal of the hon. Member.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, the Postmaster General need not have feared that similar applications would be made, for he was not aware of any place similarly situated to Lundy Island. There ' was nothing between it and the shores of America, and it stood out some distance from the mainland. The noble Lord must not take too restricted a view of his responsibilities in this matter. He (Mr. Vivian) regarded the question as one of national rather than of local importance. The telegraphs being now in the hands of the Government, the commercial community had a right to look to the Government to take this matter up; and the expenses of such an undertaking ought not to be thrown on the Chambers of Commerce, which had not the requisite machinery for carrying it out.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, the noble Lord's reply would be received with considerable disappointment by the commercial communities all over the Kingdom. The noble Lord did not seem to be sufficiently impressed with the fact that this was by no means a local question, but one concerning the commerce of the whole country, and one in which the ports in the North and North-east were equally interested with those on the Bristol Channel. He (Sir Henry Havelock) thought that if the question were left to the decision of the Chambers of Commerce there would be great delay before it could be finally disposed of. He hoped that the Department over which the noble Lord so ably presided would take the matter in hand.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 75: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 141.)

MILITARY AND NAVAL PREPARATIONS.—OBSERVATIONS.
LORD ELCHOsaid, that when he was called to Order a few minutes ago he was under the impression that the necessity of England being prepared, if necessity arose, to defend her interests in the Eastern Question, was relevant to the question before the House; and he was at that time endeavouring to show that, as far as he had been able to ascertain, many things were required before this country would be in a position promptly and efficiently to give effect to the policy which had been announced by the Home Secretary, and which had been indorsed by both sides of the House and by public opinion out-of-doors, with reference to the course this country should take. He was endeavouring to show that in order to act promptly and efficiently, we must have something more than a paper organization or a skeleton organization, and when he was stopped he was stating wherein he believed our organization was deficient. If that was not so, no one would be more glad than he to receive an assurance to that effect from the Secretary of State for War. The deficiency, he ventured to point out, consisted in the want of transport of matériel, in the proper distribution of stores, in deficient ammunition, in deficient gun-
1146
powder of a proper quality, and in accoutrements, clothing, boots, &c. There was nothing the efficiency of an army, and especially of Infantry, depended upon so much as good boots, and within the last few days he had seen boots recently issued to the Guards, the soles of which had been worn off in less than a month, and which were being returned with a remonstrance to the Clothing Department. In all these matters time meant money, promptness meant efficiency, and they could not have promptness and efficiency without money. But up to the present, as far as they knew, ostensibly at any rate, there had been no demand for money on the part of the Government; and, therefore, if these things required money and none had been asked for, it was not unreasonable to assume that we were not in that prompt and efficient state in which it was most desirable that we should be, if we ever were called upon—which God forbid—to take part in this war in the East. This was his reason for bringing this matter before the House. In doing so he would guard himself against the supposition that, in urging the House and the Government to make timely preparation, he wished to urge the country to take part in this war. All he wished was that, if we were called upon to do so, we should do so efficiently, and that we should not find ourselves in the lamentable position in which the French found themselves at the commencement of the Franco-German War—believing they had stores in abundance, when they had practically none, and what they had were so badly distributed that a general collapse resulted. If precedent were needed to justify the course he was taking, it was furnished by what occurred in this House at the outbreak of that war. The present Government being then in Opposition, the then Prime Minister moved a Vote of £2,000,000 for the Army Services, and asked for 20,000 additional men for the Army, which were granted, the Prime Minister stating that the object was to establish, not an armed neutrality, but a secure neutrality. There was no likelihood of our being dragged into that war; we had no further interest in Belgium than any other of the great European Powers; and our position was one of undisguised neutrality on both sides: and if in circumstances such as these a

1147
Liberal Government, whose watchwords were peace, retrenchment, and reform, thought it necessary to act immediately, no justification was required now for calling attention to the question. But if it were it was furnished by the speech of the present Prime Minister, made on the 1st of August, 1870, although he knew that on the following day the then Prime Minister was to ask for additional men and money. The present Prime Minister began by saying—
"To a Minister himself, in a state of affairs so critical as the present, I believe there is nothing more valuable than the intelligent and discriminating sympathy of the House of Commons."
The policy of neutrality, he added, should be made—
"Of so active a character that representations at the proper moment may lead to the restoration of peace." "A mere general exchange of platitudes as to the advantages of restoring peace and averting the horrors of war is insufficient; something more is wanted. I think the House will agree with me that excellent as is the policy of neutrality, the policy of neutrality which cannot on the right occasion speak with authority to the belligerents is really a policy not entitled to respect. … Therefore it appears to me that the policy of England should be not only neutrality, but armed neutrality."
He asked—
"Are our armaments in such a condition as enables us to adopt such a policy?"
He referred to the proposed Vote, and said—
"On the present occasion it would be satisfactory if we received assurances from the Government, more in detail, as to the condition of our Forces."
He inquired as to the Navy, the arsenals, the forts, and their armaments, the number of ships on the slips, the real condition of our stores, especially as to fuel and coaling stations, and said—
"It is not unreasonable that in the House of Commons these questions should be asked, and this information should be elicited. I will not at length pursue the same inquiries with respect to the Army, the state of which we have also been assured is satisfactory … but still one may ask these questions:—Have you an efficient Army? Are your battalions of becoming strength? Are your batteries complete? Are the numbers of the cavalry regiments what they ought to be?" "It is absolutely necessary, in a moment like the present, that we should press for some details on these vital points." "However much economy is estimated on both sides of the House, in crises like the present any body of men, being Ministers of this country, can never appeal in vain to the House of Com-
1148
mons in order that the country may be placed in a state of adequate and complete defence."—[3 Hansard, cciii. 1286–1300.]
And, finally, he pointed out how the Crimean War might have been prevented by a decided course. Following the precedent thus set by the Prime Minister, he (Lord Elcho) considered that the state of affairs at the present time sufficiently justified him in calling the attention of the House to this matter. He did not ask the Government to enter into any detail, because he thought the House should trust them; and therefore he thought they should be perfectly satisfied with a general assurance that they were taking steps to give promptness and efficiency to any action which they might think it necessary to take. Those who had studied the question said that in the present state of things it would take seven weeks to land a single English soldier in the East. If that were really the case, he could not but think it desirable that the House should encourage the Government to come to them boldly and ask for the necessary money for the defences of the country. It was with the view, not of hampering the Government, but of helping it, that he had brought the matter before the House. In conclusion, he could only urge his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to be bold in preparation and lavish in timely expenditure which, in the long run, would be the best economy. He was confident that in so doing he would have the support of the House; and he, therefore, hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give them some assurance that these things were being so looked into that they might be able to carry out promptly land efficiently the policy enunciated by the Home Secretary, and endorsed by the country.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he wished very strongly to deprecate a warlike discussion, especially at a moment when, as they had been assured, there was some hope that peace might be suddenly arrived at through the efforts of united Europe. If we maintained the view that because we held one part of Asia we were to dictate to other nations when they were looking after their interests as we had looked after ours—if we were to hold the principle that no other part of Asia should be occupied by any other

1149
European nation, then we should prepare for war. But, under present circumstances, he did not think they need prepare for war, except by making that moderate preparation which they could trust to Her Majesty's Government. As to the road to India, he quite agreed with the Home Secretary's views; but, at the same time, he did not believe that the loss of the Suez Canal would be absolutely fatal. There was an alternative route round the Cape, which they might use during a serious war, and he had Sir Garnet Wolseley's authority for believing that it would be used. As to preparedness and efficiency, our Navy was our main reliance, and he held it would be in our power by means of our Navy, in conjunction with the other Navies of Europe, to stop the war; and though the time might not be the present one, the time might come when by friendly counsels, backed by the Navies of Europe, peace might be obtained. Their best policy at present was friendliness, and he deprecated any discussion which might precipitate the very evil which they wished to avoid.
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I am far from wishing to blame my noble Friend for putting the Question which lie has thought proper to put to me; but, at the same time, I think he would have acted more prudently if he had abstained from doing so. I have nothing to conceal from the House. I brought forward the Estimates, and have not asked the House to increase them; and I think it a little premature to ask me to express an opinion, and to urge me to say something beyond what I have thought it necessary to say. If the occasion should arise to render it necessary to come to the House to ask for additional means, that would be the proper time to inquire what I have done. I wish to have the peace establishment as the nucleus for the defence of the country in case of war. With respect to the Army Mobilization Scheme, that has nothing whatever to do with our sending troops abroad. Therefore, when I brought it forward I always spoke of it as a defensive scheme. Last year my noble Friend will remember that I said there ought always to be a well-formed nucleus, so that our Army might be sent wherever it might be necessary. The House enabled me to increase 18 regiments from 600 to 820 men; and so far as that mat-
1150
ter is concerned, everyone can find out our position by looking at the Army List. The noble Lord knows there are 21 regiments in the highest condition of efficiency. I can only rest on my own responsibility in this matter, and it is my duty to be ready for any emergency which may arise. Under these circumstances, I can only say that, feeling the full responsibility of my position, I have still retained the peace force, looking to the possibility, but not to the probability of the contingency of war arising.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS II.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,745, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal."
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, that on a previous occasion, when it had been pointed out that this Office was not a necessary or component part of the Ministry, it had been answered that the Office was most important, because, having no duties, the holder of it was able to take up almost any work required by the Cabinet. But now the First Lord of the Treasury had himself shown that such a Minister as the Lord Privy Seal was unnecessary, because he had undertaken to fill the Office himself without drawing any salary, and under these circumstances he thought the right thing to do would be to withdraw the Vote. The two or three gentlemen attached to the Office should be drafted to some other Department where their services might be useful.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that, although the Lord Privy Seal had small duties to perform in connection with his own proper office, he was nevertheless an officer of importance, because he was frequently able to be of great service to the Cabinet in its deliberations and otherwise. He could by no means admit the lion. Gentleman's

  1151
  argument that because the First Lord of the Treasury had for the present associated the duties of the Privy Seal with his own it would be at all times unnecessary to have this amount of spare force in the Cabinet. It was rather a serious argument, too, to maintain that because two offices were sometimes amalgamated the second office was unnecessary. There had been occasions when the Prime Minister had also undertaken the duties of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was it to be argued that the latter office was unnecessary.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, his argument applied only to sinecure offices.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the circumstances of no two Cabinets were alike, and times and seasons must be considered. There might be seasons when it was not inconvenient for the Prime Minister to perform the duties of Lord Privy Seal; but if the Committee would consider the whole organization of the Government, they would see that if an adequate number of offices of Cabinet rank were to be maintained it was by no means unreasonable that this Office should be kept up. There were frequent occasions when the Office of Lord Privy Seal was of the greatest possible convenience to the working of the Government. Any sum now voted would not be drawn from the Exchequer as long as the present arrangement lasted; but if any different arrangement were made in future the salary would be required, and it was obvious that if the Vote were withdrawn no different arrangement would be possible during the present year. He trusted that the Committee would follow its usual precedent, and agree to the Vote.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not exactly understood the arguments of his hon. Friend (Mr. Goldsmid). It was not proposed to reject the Vote on the ground that the Office was now held by the Prime Minister; but on the ground that all the arguments went to prove there was no necessity for the Office. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the composition of the Cabinet as a circumstance which should be remembered in the consideration of the Vote; but this really seemed to prove the case against the Vote. The argument used by successive Govern-
  1152
  melts year after year in favour of maintaining the Office of Lord Privy Seal was that the weight of business pressing on the Cabinet was such that it was desirable to have an odd man in the Cabinet to relieve the pressure upon any particular Department. Now, the present Cabinet was remarkable (among several other circumstances) for being the smallest known for a great many years. He supposed the deficiency in point of number was compensated for in the quality of those forming the Cabinet. Anyhow, the fact was that there were fewer men than ordinary in the Cabinet; and it was just the time when the holder of the Privy Seal should be a gentleman whose assistance would be useful. But when the Members of the Cabinet were fewer and the pressure of business great, just that very time opportunity was taken to give the Office to the First Lord of the Treasury. Allusion had been made to instances in former years when the First Lord was also Chancellor of the Exchequer; and no doubt there were brilliant examples of statesmen holding those two offices. There was an instance quite recently, when the late Prime Minister temporarily held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the experience of the junction of those two offices had proved that the course was open to serious objections. But the Office they were discussing was a sinecure, and the only excuse for maintaining it was that a noble Lord would be able to do something for the Cabinet which otherwise there would be nobody to attend to. Now, those who used that argument did so no doubt with the conviction that there was some truth in it; but, looking back at those circumstances, when a Lord Privy Seal attempted to do the work of some Department, he would venture to say the work was always badly done. He remembered when it was said in "another place" that the Lord Privy Seal was engaged in sitting upon the Admiralty eggs, and all those eggs became addled. The only real argument, in his judgment, which influenced a Government in supporting the Office was that occasions arose when Members of former Cabinets had to be appointed again. Generally it would be found upon a Party coming into power that there was a right hon. Gentleman who had held office previously—

  1153
  it might be Chancellor of the Exchequer or any other office, in which he had not been very successful. When the new Cabinet was formed the question would arise, what was to be done with such a right hon. Gentleman, and a way out of the difficulty was found by making him Lord Privy Seal, and sending him to the House of Lords. But he (Mr. Rylands) was quite sure that did not, in the eyes of the country, justify the maintenance of what was one of the greatest sinecure Offices under the Crown. The Vote should be struck out of the Estimates, and the public service purified from a sinecure appointment for which there was no justification.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, the Lord Privy Seal was constantly useful as a responsible Minister of the Crown, because everything that passed the Great Seal must pass the Privy Seal first. It was, therefore, incorrect to say that the Office of Lord Privy Seal was a sinecure. The First Lord of the Treasury merely had in that capacity the rank of a Privy Councillor, and, consequently, it was convenient that he should be also Lord Privy Seal. The present Premier, in taking that augmentation to his dignity, had had the liberality to say that he would not draw the salary. If the hon. Gentleman went to a division he should certainly vote against him.
  MR. PEASEsaid, there was no disposition on the part of the Committee to prevent the Cabinet from having an odd man if they required one; but as the question now under consideration was the abolition, not of the Office of Lord Privy Seal, but only of the salary which would not be drawn, he thought the Committee ought not to pass this Vote of £2,000 a-year.
  MR. DILLWYNcontended that the duties of the Office in question were not of such a character as necessitated the employment of a Cabinet Minister. In spite of what had fallen from the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir George Bowyer), his opinion was that the Office was a sinecure, and for this reason he had always advocated its abolition.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERpointed out that in former times the Lord Privy Seal was, in fact, the Prime Minister. For instance, Cromwell, King Henry VIII.'s Prime Minister, held the office of Lord Privy Seal.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsuggested that the £2,000 a-year which the Government would save by the abolition of the Office of Lord Privy Seal, would pay for the services of a Cabinet Minister to represent Scotland.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 46: Majority 58. — (Div. List, No. 142.)
  (2.) £27,255, to complete the sum for the Charity Commission, agreed to.
  (3.) £20,280, to complete the sum for the Civil Service Commission.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, that, notwithstanding the objections urged last year, this Vote had been greatly increased. Was that in consequence of the increased examinations in the country? He noticed that £3,000 of the Vote was for the examination of candidates for military appointments. Why was not that sum placed under the head of War Office expenditure?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that candidates for Army appointments did not pay any fees for examination, but it was thought right that the examination of these candidates should be conducted by the Civil Service Examiners. If the principle suggested by the hon. Member were carried out it would be necessary to place the amount expended in examinations for clerks under the head of each Department in the Civil Service. The only increase in the Vote was £500 for the expenses of assistant examiners, consequent upon increased examinations. There had been no addition to the regular staff of the Department.
  MR. RAMSAYmaintained that the amount spent on the Army Examinations ought to be stated on the face of the Vote.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the sexpense of the Army Examinations was set forth on the face of the Vote.
  MR. RYLANDSasked whether the assistant examiners were in the Civil Service or not, and if they were what salaries they were paid for other duties?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that a circular had been sent by the Treasury to each Department requiring that a full Return should be made of all all additions made to salaries which were paid to every officer.
  Vote agreed to.

  1155
  (4.) £14,982, to complete the sum for the Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission, agreed to.
  (5.) £7,130, to complete the sum for the Inclosure and Drainage Acts, Imprest Expenses, agreed to.
  (6.) £41,819, to complete the sum for the Exchequer and Audit Department, agreed to.
  (7.) £4,910, to complete the sum for the Registry of Friendly Societies, agreed to.
  (8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £564,986, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board, including various Grants in aid of Local Taxation."
  MR. PEASEdesired to call attention to the fact that the Vote for vaccination expenses, which last year was £6,000, had increased to £16,500. He had thought of going more fully into the subject of vaccination, as the mode in which it was being carried out in the country produced great dissatisfaction; but he hoped to bring on the larger question when the Motion on the Paper placed there by the noble Lord the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy) came on for consideration. He would, therefore, do no more at present than ask how it was that there was this increase of £10,500 in the Vote?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the charges under this head had been increasing for several years past, and were progressive. The Department had paid great attention to the subject in the hope of reducing the Vote, but he feared that it could not be diminished. The increase of £10,500 had not occurred last year, but had been growing for some time, as during the present Session a Supplementary Vote had been granted to provide for the arrears of last and previous years. The expenditure arose in carrying out the requirements of Acts of Parliament. The sum of 1s. 6d. was allowed for each case, and 1s. extra for each successful case of vaccination by medical officers, and he did not think that 2s. 6d. was too much for such cases. The practice of vaccination was carried out much more regularly
  1156
  than formerly in consequence of the Act of 1873 requiring officers to report to the Boards of Guardians all cases of neglect. That caused children to be brought to the medical officers to be vaccinated, and that again was the cause of an increase in the charges. The greatest pains were taken to secure the right administration of this money, and to mitigate the evils of this scourge.
  MR. DODSONcalled the attention of the Committee to the large and increasing charges for Inspectors of different kinds. In this Vote were included the salaries of 56 Inspectors, amounting to £44, 000, and if their travelling and other expenses were included the aggregate cost was about £134,000. By this and other Votes Inspectors were provided for, exceeding 1,000 in number, whose salaries amounted to £300,000. These were all Inspectors or Commissioners superintending—not to say interfering in—the conduct of local affairs by local authorities, or private affairs by private bodies or individuals. Both in amount and cost the superintendence of the Central Government was daily increasing. It used to be said that everything an Englishman used or enjoyed throughout his life was the subject of a tax. Happily, we had got rid of the greater number of those taxes. There was, however, a danger that the Government Inspector would become the general nuisance that the taxgatherer used to be formerly. It might almost be said that every pursuit in which an Englishman engaged was now the subject of inspection by some officer under some branch of the Central Government. Inspectors haunted their factories, workshops, mines, railways, and ships, and pried into a multitude of other matters. There was an Inspector of the school in which a man received his education at the beginning of his life, also an Inspector of the burial ground in which he was laid at its close. That system had made great strides within the last 12 years. In 1865–6, the number of Inspectors employed by the Central Government was between 300 and 400; whereas now the number of Inspectors and Commissioners was upwards of 1,000; the aggregate amount of their salaries and expenses having risen within the same period, in round figures, from £140,000 to £300,000, or, including both salaries and expenses, to £600,000. However

  1157
  much could be said in favour of inspection by the Central Government to secure the execution of certain laws, yet the growth of that system ought to be watched with the utmost vigilance and jealousy both in the interest of economy and of what was more important—the avoidance of undue interference in the management of local affairs by local authorities, and of private affairs by individuals. He would not propose the reduction of the Vote; as all that expenditure was intended to carry out services which the House had previously sanctioned; but he thought that unless they made a stand against the inordinate extension of the system to which he had referred, that feeling of local independence and individual self-reliance which had always distinguished our people, as compared with other nations, would soon be destroyed.
  MR. RAMSAYconcurred with the views of the right hon. Gentleman, believing it to be most undesirable that the self-reliance of individuals or of sections of the community should be impaired by Government interference. He also quoted, as an example of the diversity of practice existing in different parts of the Kingdom, the fact that they were asked to vote £16,000 for vaccination in England, while for Scotland, where vaccination was equally compulsory, there was no corresponding charge. In the same way there was an item of £35,000 for the education of pauper children in workhouses; whereas the cost of educating the same class of children in Scotland was thrown upon the rates. The item was out of place here, and ought to be included in the general Vote for Education.
  MR. MELLORthought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) must be under some misapprehension when he spoke of the inconvenience which the visits of the Inspectors occasioned in the workshops, by the frequency of their visits, because no practical inspection of them was ever made. The right hon. Gentleman said that if a man went down a mine he was immediately followed by an Inspector, but colliers who had worked in coal mines for 25 years or more had assured him that they had never seen an Inspector down their mines; and from his own experience he could say that Inspectors were seldom or ever seen inside the mills and factories. The Inspectors were
  1158
  generally selected from among discharged officers of the Army and Navy, and the Excise, a class of men who knew nothing about properly protecting machinery or the duties that they had generally to discharge. There was scarcely one of them who was competent to say if machinery was properly secured or not. In the Poor Law union of Ashton-under-Lyne he found that the two Inspectors visited the workhouse three times last year, and the whole time occupied by them was just nine hours. Surely if this short space of time was sufficient for the purpose of efficient inspection we might dispense with their services altogether. The country was paying too much for the work performed by Inspectors. They should reduce the number, and thereby produce a corresponding amount of economy.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that for some time Parliament had embarked on this species of legislation, without any proportionate benefit for the expense incurred. The effect of the recent relief of local taxation at the expense of the country had been to increase rather than diminish expenditure. The effect had certainly been to greatly increase the expenditure with regard to pauper lunatics. To every pound granted in this Vote there would probably be added 5s. for increased superannuation charges with regard to the different departments concerned. If the Committee did not wish the country to be involved in serious difficulties with reference to increased expenditure they must resist the cry of local relief, which, in his opinion, had always been a mischievous cry; and they ought also to resist the Chambers of Commerce, that were constantly asking the Government to apply remedies for existing evils which these institutions ought to provide for themselves. The creation of so great an army of officials was becoming a positive danger, since it led to a waste of public money, without conducing to the general advantage of the country or to the increased safety of the public health.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTagreed that this expenditure of £340,000 did not benefit the landed interest. He thought the root of the evil was that the counties were forced to provide the most costly lunatic asylums, and to maintain pauper lunatics in them at an expense altogether unnecessary. Such a pitch

  1159
  of extravagance had been reached in this respect that some remedy must very quickly be found. At the present time Surrey and other counties were labouring under great difficulties as to accommodating pauper lunatics; and he submitted that it was most desirable to allow those pauper lunatics who were harmless to be kept in the Union workhouses, and to be granted a certain sum head for their maintenance there according to their cost. That would tend to save a considerable sum now expended in the construction of costly asylums. He also complained of the inequality with which England and Scotland were treated in this matter, for Scotland had managed to secure a State grant of 4s. per head for lunatics kept in their union workhouses which was not granted to England.
  MR. WHITWELLexpressed concurrence with the hon. and gallant Baronet in what he had said as to the extravagance of the present system.
  EARL PERCYagreed with the hon. and gallant Baronet that harmless lunatics should be retained in the workhouses, and pointed out that the various remedial measures which increased the number of Inspectors, such as the Acts relating to factories, mines, unseaworthy ships, and education had been supported quite as much by the Liberal Party as by the Conservatives. He should like to be informed upon what statistics the President of the Local Government Board based his opinion that vaccination had of late years been more satisfactorily carried out than before.
  MR. RAMSAYexplained that there was a misapprehension in the minds of some hon. Gentlemen as to the grants made by the State in Scotland, and denied that that country really obtained any concession which was withheld from England. He thought it would be desirable to assimilate the English to the Scotch system.
  MR. SCLATER - BOOTHsaid, he thought his right hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) ought not to have founded his homily on this Vote. His right hon. Friend had read to the House a very interesting lecture on the disadvantages of too much inspection, and in that principle he himself entirely agreed. But his right hon. Friend had entirely failed to show that there was in this Vote anything to jus-
  1160
  tify the lecture he had delivered to the Committee. He thought that his right hon. Friend must be aware that the great increase in the number and cost of Inspectors in the public service during the last 12 years was due, not to any additional increase under this Vote, but to the number of Inspectors assigned to the Education Department, the Board of Trade, and the Home Office. His right hon. Friend might have had the candour to point out that since he had been President of the Local Government Board he had abolished a whole class of Inspectors that had been constituted by the Government of which his right hon. Friend was a Member. This was done at the very trifling cost of adding one or two to the number of the general Inspectors. There were also other appointments under this Vote that he had been the means of getting rid of. He had forborne on many occasions from asking Parliament to establish additional inspection in respect of improvements of the law which he had had the opportunity of passing through the House. When the Adulteration of Food Act was passed he did not ask Parliament for additional Inspectors; he left that matter to the local authorities. The same remark would apply to the measure for the prevention of the pollution of rivers, and to the Act relating to noxious vapours from alkali works. With regard to the complaint that £35,000 was a subvention in aid of education, and that some security ought to be given for the proper expenditure of that money, he must say that the charges for the inspection of workhouse schools erred certainly on the side of moderation. There was no doubt some plausibility in the suggestion that the Education Department should perform the function of inspecting workhouse schools. That was formerly done by the Education Office; but these schools were not only for the education, but also for the maintenance of pauper children; and it would be extremely injurious to have one set of Inspectors to inquire into the education of the children and another to ascertain how they were bearded, lodged, and maintained. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had raised a large question with respect to subventions in aid of the support of pauper lunatics; but the Committee would remember that the grant of 4s. per head

  1161
  to which allusion had been made was surrounded by a variety of guarantees against abuse in its expenditure. The management of the lunatic was a matter altogether apart from the duty of the Guardians. The lunatic could only be removed by the authority of the magistrates, and the Visiting Justices were responsible for the expenditure incurred in maintaining him. In Scotland, however, the system was altogether different, the lunatic wards in the workhouses there being certified places of detention. In English workhouses the so-called lunatics were merely imbecile paupers. It had been urged that it would be for the interest of the ratepayers that those imbeciles should be removed from the workhouses to the asylums so that the latter might receive the 4s. per head per week, and that was a question to which he had given much consideration; but the statistics showed that while there had been from year to year an increase in the number of lunatics in the county and borough asylums, there had also been an increase in the number of lunatics in the workhouses, and that not only from removals, which could only be effected by warrant signed by a Justice. He had been asked whether he thought that the Vote under consideration would increase. Well he certainly did not look for a reduction of it, but this he believed—that it was within the control and competency of the local authorities themselves to effect a reduction if they desired to do so. He did not see why several Unions might not unite to provide asylums of a cheaper character, or wards in the workhouses in which imbecile persons might be attended to at a much lower cost than that which they entailed in the county asylums. He should certainly deprecate the breaking down of any of the safeguards against abuses which at present existed. He could not enter into the whole question of the policy of the Government with regard to these subventions; but all who had watched the progress of public opinion for the last 10 years must admit that some system such as that adopted by the Government must have been applied in aid of local rates, or else some fundamental change must have been made in the way of collecting and assessing the rates, not only from landed but from personal property. That was a matter of so much difficulty, and
  1162
  would involve so great a change in our existing practice, that he was satisfied the Government had adopted the right alternative when they elected to meet the demand upon them by the adoption of these subventions. With respect to Scotland they managed matters in that country well and with great public spirit, but the system which prevailed there was very different from that which existed in England; but he might remind the Committee that last year his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated to a deputation from Scotland that with the same securities for due administration as were given here the system of subventions in aid of salaries might be put in force in Scotland. The Guardians and workhouse authorities in England greatly disliked to have the responsibility of taking care of troublesome and imbecile patients. They caused more expense than ordinary paupers, and the Guardians wished them to be removed to the asylums even when they could be treated in the workhouse. With reference to the large increase in the Vote for vaccination, it was accounted for by the more efficient manner in which the Vaccination Act was now carried out. The medical officers charged with the duty of vaccination had now had so much experience of the work that they carried it out with more skill than formerly, and were more alive to the directions for the performance of vaccination which were issued from head-quarters. In a recent Report of the officer at the head of this department it was stated that in the year before last 95 per cent of the children born in England had been vaccinated in that year. That was a great result, and the rapid progress of the Vote was an indication that the work was now performed in an efficient and satisfactory manner.
  MR. PEASEsaid, that, after the explanation that had been given by the right hon. Gentleman of the increase of the costs of vaccination, he should not press his Amendment for a reduction of the Vote to a division, as if he did so it would really imply a breach of contract with those medical gentlemen who in most cases had faithfully discharged the duties they had undertaken; but he must enter a caveat against the remarks that had been made about Inspectors, which remarks would produce an impression in

  1163
  the country very different from that intended by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Mellor). He believed that the Inspectors of factories and mines, as well as Poor Law Inspectors, were generally men of special qualifications who discharged their duties efficiently. At the same time, the increase in the number of Inspectors was a matter deserving of attention, for inquiries by Committees and Commissions generally resulted in the appointment of more Inspectors, and the House was never so dangerous as when it became philan-thropical.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board thought that some cheaper mode than existed at present for the maintenance and instruction, as far as it went, of harmless idiots should be adopted. Some were in asylums who ought not to be, and many were in workhouses where their presence was more or less a nuisance. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would exercise his influence with the Lunacy Commissioners, and endeavour to induce them not to insist upon so many alterations in workhouses when converting them into asylums for harmless idiots. The expense which such alterations necessitated was very heavy.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he was very glad that this discussion had taken place. Year by year the Vote to which the attention of the Committee had been directed had largely increased. It had risen from something like £100,000, at which he remembered it when he first entered the House, to £714,000. Such expenditure was not to be regarded in the same light as that on the Army and Navy, which were Government Services, and it was not to be assumed that the expenditure was always justifiable because it was incurred under the supervision of the Local Government Board. It was a very open question whether an increased expenditure did much good; at any rate, this test of expenditure was not a proper test. He was glad to bear his testimony to the sound management of the Department; but the managers for the poor had no liberty, and were placed in a very undignified position, as all control, even in the most trivial matters, was taken away from them by the Local Government Board. He found no fault
  1164
  with the right hon. Gentleman, but with the policy adopted by the House.
  MR. BIGGARrecommended that there should be some test of the qualifications of Inspectors under the Local Government Board, as he believed that many of them were incompetent.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, in reference to the interference of the central authority with Boards of Guardians in the Metropolis, of which the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury had complained, he was ready to admit that the interference was greater than with Boards of Guardians in the country, but he wished to point out that it was brought about in the most deliberate manner by the unanimous vote of Parliament in 1867. The hon. Baronet must very well remember the abuses which brought about that centralization. He was not an advocate for an extension of the present system, rather would he wish to decrease it; but he could not deny that it had worked for the relief of the ratepayers and the benefit of the local institutions. He thought the hon. Baronet's charge, that the Vote for his Department had increased, was scarcely justifiable. That increase was brought about by three causes. In the first place, when the Local Government Board was set up, various duties which had been up to that time performed by other Departments were transferred to the new Board. Secondly, when the Public Health Act was passed Parliament deemed it expedient to grant certain subventions to the local authorities in aid of the offices created under that Act. Those subventions caused an increase in the Vote of £100,000 a-year, which had since been reduced to £60,000. The third cause of the increase was attributable to the policy adopted by the Government in 1874 of granting subventions in aid of pauper lunatics. With all these causes in view, it was hardly fair to charge the Department with having allowed the Vote to increase.
  MR. PARNELLwas sorry that the Vote should be taken when there were so few Members present to discuss it. It was, perhaps, one of the most important Votes that could be brought before the House—not so much from its present importance as from the prospective importance it appeared to be gaining by reason of the centralizing influences the Government were introducing under the

  1165
  guise of domestic legislation. He wished to point out to hon. Members on the Liberal side, who on various occasions had expressed themselves opposed to the centralizing policy which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) avowed himself in favour of, that by discussing the various items of the present Vote, and by urging objections where reasonable objections could be found, the attention of the Government would be directed to the subject in the most practical way. The hon. Gentleman moved to reduce the Vote by the sum of £10,000.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That the Item of £16,500, Public Vaccination, be reduced by the sum of £10,000."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 2; Noes 115: Majority 113. — (Div List, No. 143.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (9.) £12,494, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission, agreed to.
  (10.) £41,700, to complete the sum for the Mint, including Coinage.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKcomplained that the country had not a proper Mint. The Government ought to look out for a good place and see where a suitable building for the purpose could be erected. He wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to go forward in this direction?
  MR. SWANSTONthought the present site was sufficient for the purpose; and, considering the present state of the Exchequer, he thought it would be better to let matters remain as they were.
  MR. MONKalso hoped that the Mint would not be removed from its present site.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the question of the Mint was no doubt one of some interest and of some complexity. The Government were not entirely satisfied with the present condition of the Mint. The machinery was not so good as it ought to be, and it must be renewed. They must not run into extravagance for the purpose of putting up a Mint "worthy of the country." A Mint that properly did its work was a Mint "worthy of the country." On the other hand, it was true that a good deal might be done by selling the present site for other very valuable
  1166
  purposes, and possibly then a new site might be obtained on which new machinery might be constructed more conveniently than on the present site. The Government had met with a great deal of difficulty in trying to find such a site, and hitherto they had not been able to come to any arrangement. They were still considering the subject, and making inquiries. If they could not find a place which they thought both from an economical point of view and in other respects would suit them, it would then be for them to carry out the necessary alterations in the machinery on the present site.
  MR. DODSONregretted to hear the right hon. Gentleman speak of acquiring a site for the Mint by purchase as if no other course admitted of consideration. It had been suggested that the Mint could be safely and conveniently placed within the precincts of the Tower without any cost having to be incurred for the purchase of the site. A good deal of French copper coinage was coming into this country. He presumed that indicated that the supply of our copper coinage was deficient. He should be glad to know whether the Mint was taking steps to supply that deficiency.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the placing of the Mint within the precincts of the Tower was utterly out of the question. He suggested that it would be better to secure a site at Woolwich and fortify it.
  MR. DELAHUNTYsaid, he had to mention a matter in connection with coinage which was of considerable importance to small shopkeepers. There were two small silver coins, fourpenny and threepenny pieces, and it was very inconvenient to parties trading to find out which was which, and mistakes were very apt to be made by people in a hurry. What he would suggest was—and he knew it would be a great boon to small shopkeepers—that fourpenny pieces should be abolished and three, penny pieces retained, which would be more convenient than retaining both coins.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he was glad the Government had taken the subject of the Mint into their consideration.
  MR. RYLANDSexpressed the hope that if the Government came to the conclusion that it was expedient to purchase another site for the Mint, the House

  1167
  would have an opportunity of properly considering the whole proposal before it was asked to commit itself to any large expenditure for such a purpose.
  MR. GOLDSMIDremarked that the House on two previous occasions had considered the question of the removal of the Mint, and had twice decided that the Mint should be kept where it was. He would, therefore, advise the Government to rest satisfied with those two decisions and not to bring the matter again before the House. The desire of the Government seemed to be to provide a house in a better situation for the Assistant Master; but when a man accepted a good office he should put up with the residence, though it might not be in the most favourable situation. The Government should keep the Mint where it was.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERaltogether repudiated the suggestion that there was any idea of removing the Mint for the sake of providing a more agreeable residence for the Assistant Master. The only object which the Government had was to make the most economical and best arrangement for the working of the Mint. The House had not twice objected to the removal of the Mint, but had objected to the schemes proposed. However, there were two alternatives—either to expend money in improving the buildings upon the present site, or to find another site and sell the present buildings and site to the best advantage. No scheme would be proposed by the Government on the subject without giving the House a full opportunity of considering the matter. As to the coinage, he believed that the Mint was providing as much copper coinage, either by its own operations or by contract, as was likely to be sufficient.
  MR. BIGGAR,thought it would be much more convenient to have the Mint as near as possible to the London banks, and that it would be a mistake to remove the Mint as far as Woolwich.
  Vote agreed to..
  (11.) £13,857, to complete the sum for the National Debt Office, agreed to.
  (12.) £18,069, to complete the sum for the Patent Office.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRremarked that while the Government derived a revenue of £180,000 from the inventors
  1168
  of this country, it made them a very insignificant return. Only about £2,000 was spent upon a Patent Museum. The Patent Museum at South Kensington was very inferior to the corresponding institutions in France and America, and if we had such a museum at all it ought to be a good one, and such as would promote invention. He wished to ask whether the Government had bought or rented a large building for the purposes of an efficient Patent Museum?
  MR. WHITWELLasked how it was that so much was expended in these departments for stationery?
  SIR ANDREW LUSKasked who now paid the Law Officers? He thought that inventors did not pay so much in fees as it seemed to some hon. Members.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that two years ago the Government undertook to provide for a better exhibition of patented inventions; but shortly after an arrangement had to be made for an exhibition of scientific instruments, and that exhibition expanded to such a degree that the Government was obliged to concede for the time to the Exhibition the space provided for the Patent Museum. It was still the intention of the Government to find suitable space for specimens of patents and inventions. The hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell ) had referred to the cost of printing and stationery for patents; but one condition was that inventors should have pacifications provided, and they were very costly. The Law Officers of the Crown were now paid by salary and not in fees, and these payments were voted annually.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURwas understood to complain that the Scotch and Irish Law Officers had not been placed on the same footing as the English. They still received emoluments out of the fees levied on patents. The salaries of the Attorney and Solicitor General of England were now fixed, irrespective of their former fees. Then the Lord Advocate of Scotland received fees from three different sources. It was also impossible to find out what the total emoluments were which the Lord Advocate actually had. All this mystery was wrong. Moreover, Scotland had a right to the entire services of the Lord Advocate, and could afford to remunerate him liberally for devoting all his time to their public duties, without being de-

  1169
  pendent either on fees for patents or for other causes, and even to pay him so as to enable him to abstain from private practice.
  MR. DILLWYNobjected to spending money on a Patent Museum. He did not believe in the necessity for one. Unless large enough to contain models of every patented invention it would be of little use, and even then would take more space and cost more money than it would be worth.
  Vote agreed to.
  (13.) £17,258, to complete the sum for the Paymaster General's Office.
  (14.) £18,719, to complete the sum for the Public Record Office.
  (15.) £8,136, to complete the sum for the Public Works Loan Commission, &c.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURinquired to what extent the Government were responsible for the loans which the Commissioners made?
  MR. W. H. SMITHexplained that neither the Treasury nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer were responsible for the particular advances which were made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners; but they as well as the Government of the day were responsible for any remission of debt due to the public which they might from time to time propose to Parliament.
  Vote agreed to.
  (16.) £38,611, to complete the sum for the Register Office General, agreed to.
  (17.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £377,729, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for Stationery, Printing, Binding, and Printed Books for the several Departments of Government in England, Scotland, and. Ireland, and some Dependencies, and for Stationery, Binding, Printing, and Paper for the two Houses of Parliament, including the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office."
  MR. RYLANDS,after objecting to several items, said the expense was out of all proportion to the work done. In estimating the extra receipts it must be remembered that a large sum was received for waste paper.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the quantity of waste paper arose from the fact that Returns were too freely granted, and he suggested that in future more attention should be given to the fact whether they were for the public interest or not before they were granted. He also suggested that when they were granted, they should not be distributed so lavishly as at present. A great many Returns were moved for and granted that were of interest only to those who moved for them. By restricting their issue to those Members only who wished to have them, hon. Members would be saved the trouble of arranging them, or of selling them for waste paper.
  MR. DILLWYNcalled attention to the large sum paid to the editors and clerks of The London, Dublin, and Edinburgh Gazettes, and moved the reduction of the item by £2,116. He looked upon the office as a sinecure, and he expressed his doubts whether the sums charged for clerks were really so expended.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Item of £2,116, for the Salaries of the Gazette Offices, London, Edinburgh, and Dublin, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the amount of printing was, no doubt, very large; but if a Return was ordered by the House, it did not cost very much more to furnish 100 or 200 additional copies. With regard to the gentlemen employed in connection with The London Gazette, they fairly earned their salaries. The editor, a gentleman appointed by the late Government, was fully entitled to the salary ho received, and the five clerks had a considerable amount of work to do. Considering that a profit of £25,000 was obtained, the amount of expenditure was not very large.
  MR. GOLDSMIDcomplained of the great expenditure which occurred on Parliamentary Returns, and recommended the Government to show a little more firmness in resisting Motions for such Returns.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKwas of opinion, on the contrary, that no greater obstacles ought to be placed in the way of granting them, inasmuch as they frequently furnished a good deal of valuable information as well as supplied many hon. Members with the only opportunity of bringing their names before the public.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, it would be a pity to curtail the privileges of hon. Members, who should be allowed to move for Returns, which might be of service, if not to the general public, at least to their constituents. Economy might, however, be exercised in cutting down the voluminous mass of information which was sometimes laid on the Table by the Government, and which nobody ever read.
  MR. BIGGARsupported the Vote.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had no doubt the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken found Blue Books occasionally very useful. Economy might, he thought, be secured, if greater care was observed in the granting of Returns.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENthought that the cost of printing might he reduced and the time of the House saved, if the Questions of which hon. Members gave Notice were — as they well might be—confined to a compass much shorter than the space they now usually occupied.
  MR. ASSHETONconsidered that the number of Blue Books printed went in many cases beyond the demand.
  MR. J. COWENobserved that £775 was paid for 121 copies of Hansard's Debates. This was all that Mr. Hansard received for his very excellent record of the debates of Parliament. He noticed also that £400 was paid to Mr. Ross for The Parliamentary Record. The sum paid for each of these publications seemed scarcely proportionate; and he should like to know what number of copies of The Parliamentary Record were circulated.
  MR. W. H. SMITHwas not able to say how many copies of The Parliamentary Record were circulated. It was, however, furnished to all the Public Offices, and was found exceedingly useful as a record of the proceedings of Parliament.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (18.) £20,593 to complete the sum for the Woods, Forests, &c. Office.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEcalled attention to the great expense of management of the Woods and Forests as compared with the revenue of that Department. The gross revenue of the Woods and Forests was £470,000 a-
  1172
  year, while the salaries, legal expenses, &c., amounted to between £110,000 and £120,000 per annum, or one-fourth of the entire revenue. The Woods and Forests were looked upon as a Revenue Department, and the Commissioners had frequently, in documents presented to that House, and in evidence given before Committees, spoken of themselves as being purely a Revenue Department. There was, however, one estate under their charge of a very different kind from the others—the Windsor estate, which cost £25,000 a-year, whilst its receipts were only £6,000, being an annual deficit of £19,000. It was desirable that in future this estate should be included in the first class of Estimates as a Palace in the occupation of Her Majesty. He thought it rather strange that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, who had thought it their duty to address the House of Commons in opposition to the views it had taken on the subject of the New Forest, should have omitted to point out the inconvenience of keeping a Palace account such as that of Windsor under the head of a Revenue Department.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he was satisfied that the subject of Woods and Forests was one which needed further discussion, and was not sufficiently understood by hon. Members; but lie thought the letter of the head of the Department was a very proper one, and that the views he had expressed were not open to the censure conveyed by the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea.
  THE CHANCELLORor THE EXCHEQUER said, that the arrangements now in force had been in existence ever since the settlement with the Crown in reference to Crown Lands. Whether it was the best that could be made, and whether the system of management that was adopted, allowing it to be reckoned with other portions of the Crown Lands, was a good one, he would not say; but it was the way in which the property had been dealt with throughout the present Reign and several previous Reigns, and he did not think it would be fair to make an alteration in the system all at once. There would be no objection to laying Mr. Howard's letter before Parliament.
  MR. DILLWYNobserved that he did not understand the hon. Baronet the

  1173
  Member for Chelsea to pronounce any blame on Mr. Howard in respect of his letter. He merely said that Mr. Howard had placed himself in the position of an accounting officer. The real question the hon. Baronet had raised was whether the property should continue to be managed at a cost of 22½ per cent?
  MR. RYLANDSthought steps should be taken by the Government to bring the enormous expenditure which at present took place in connection with the Crown Lands into something like reasonable bounds.
  MR. WHITWELLconsidered that the Treasury had not a proper control over the estate as things were, and that the accounts showed the fact.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the matter was one which might be raised by giving distinct Notice. The accounts were always laid before Parliament, and it was competent to anyone to raise the subject more conveniently than by mere conversation. The hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Dilke) ought to have considered the peculiar character of the estate, and that it had been taken from the Crown on a certain understanding, part of which was that Windsor Park should be kept up in a particular manner. No doubt the estate was not managed strictly on commercial principles, and there was consequently a considerable percentage of expenses for managment. But the Government had directed their attention to the subject, and always desired to curtail any unnecessary expenses.
  Vote agreed to.
  (19.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £31,395, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will conic in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."
  MR. MELLORmoved the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £510, the amount of the salary of the superintendent for the supply of coals and firewood, and of the superintendent for the supply of candles and oil.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £30,885, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum
  1174
  necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."—(Mr. Mellor.)
  MR. WALTERshould like to know what offices there were to which those articles were supplied?
  MR. GERARD NOELexplained that the officers in question superintended the supply of coals and firewood and of candles and oil, not for the Office of Works alone, but for all the Government Offices in Class I.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKdrew attention to the fact that several officers whose salaries were included in this Vote also received salaries from other offices, and suggested that it was an unsatisfactory system of paying them.
  MR. DODSONalso asked for information as to an item of £50 a-year paid to one of the officers as receiver of the tolls of Chelsea Bridge. What connection was there between the Office of Works and Chelsea Bridge?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, Chelsea Bridge was the property of the Government, and it had been customary for many years to allow the officer in question the sum of £50 a-year out of the tolls of the bridge.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 122: Majority 82.—(Div. List, No. 144.)
  MR. DILLWYNobjected to the practice of allowing public officers to be paid by salary and commission. In his opinion, they ought to be paid by one or the other but not by both. The existing practice was bad, and ought to be abolished.
  MR. GERARD NOELsaid, the arrangement had been come to many years ago after much consideration, and the work was well done.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March 1878, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."
  MR. PARNELL,viewing the subject as one of considerable importance, hoped the Government would not think it unreasonable to report Progress at that stage. He did not wish to go into the Vote then, because it was a matter which would lead to much discussion, and he would like to avail himself of the assistance of the other Irish Members not then present. ["Oh, oh!"] He knew that was not a reason which would be accepted if there were no other reason; but it was one which weighed with him and he had no desire to accept the responsibility of discussing the Vote then. It was a matter exciting much attention in Ireland. The Committee would observe that the item of Secret Service came in the Estimates under the branches connected with England only—there were no charges under that head for Ireland or Scotland. In Ireland it was believed —and he thought not without reason—that a considerable portion of the sum voted was spent in a most improper way in England; and in years gone by the sums thus spent were much larger. He thought that the amounts for the Vote spent in Ireland or in matters connected with Ireland should be stated in the Vote, so that the country could understand how much of the Secret Service money was devoted to Ireland. If the Government would undertake to make that declaration he should not press the Motion; but if an objection were raised, he should move that Progress be reported.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was getting rather late, and the Committee had been engaged upon the Estimates the whole evening. He would not, therefore, object to Progress being then reported.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

CUSTOMS, INLAND REVENUE, AND SAVINGS BANKS BILL— [BILL 143.]
(Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
CUSTOMS, INLAND REVENUE, AND SAVINGS BANKS BILL— [BILL 143.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYmoved the following clause:—
  1176
  (Exemption of farmers from Gun Licence Duty.)
  "Guns used by farmers or persons employed by them exclusively for the protection of their crops shall be exempted from Licence Duty."
  He was sorry to have troubled the House another year with this question. There was a considerable amount of feeling in the country with regard to this tax, which the farmers considered most unjust, as it prevented many from taking steps to protect their crops from the ravages of wild animals. Of late years, rooks and wood pigeons had greatly increased in number, and every time the farmer's attention was called to the damage caused thereby, it was naturally associated in his mind with this obnoxious gun tax. When the tax was first imposed, it was said to be for the purpose of preventing people going about with guns who ought not to possess them, but there was no reason why farmers should not be exempted. This gun tax was a reversal of the policy which Parliament had adopted many years ago. When there was a considerable agitation in regard to game, Parliament gave a concession in favour of farmers shooting hares upon their own farms. This concession was removed by the gun tax being imposed. The right hon. Member for London University, to whom the country was indebted for the tax, had a great desire for simplicity and uniformity, and consequently it was imposed upon all alike. He would direct attention to the Report of the Inland Revenue Commissioners on this question. They said that many persons used guns for sporting who did not possess game licences. It was evident that the gun licence was collected with more diligence than the game licences; for, while the gun licences had increased by 8,000 during the year, the game licences in the same period had decreased by 1,400. He was afraid this tax was continued as an additional game law, and imposed for the purposes of protecting game. Farmers had long just cause of complaint in respect to injury to their crops; but instead of getting any relief, the grievance was becoming greater every year. The whole amount received from the tax was only £60,000 a-year, and it was not therefore a question of revenue.
  New Clause—(Mr. J. W. Barclay,)— brought up, and read the first time.

  1177
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsupported the proposition of the hon. Member for Forfarshire, as he believed that the Government would derive a larger revenue from licences if the gun tax were abolished and the right to carry guns made to depend on the local arrangements of counties by transferring the income now paid into the Exchequer to the localities. This licensing, as well as the licences for dogs, for shooting game, for hawkers, and various other purposes, were purely police arrangements, and consequently the receipts there from ought to go into the local funds and not into the Exchequer.
  MR. ANDERSONwas sorry he could not support the proposal, because it was one for simply exempting farmers and those employed by them from paying the gun tax, and that would introduce a system of exemptions which would be of a very exceptional character. The tax might be a good or bad one, but while it remained he could not but oppose exemptions.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought that the objection of the hon. Member who had spoken last hit the real difficulty in the way of such a clause. There would, moreover, be great difficulty in defining who were farmers, and in discovering whether a man carrying a gun and shooting was really a farmer or a poacher. It was quite clear that the Government could not adopt such a proposition as this, as the revenue officers would not know where to levy the tax.
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsaid, that the farmers of Scotland would like to get rid of the gun tax, but not at the expense of the rest of the community of that country.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 92: Majority 72. — (Division List, No. 145.)
  Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.— [BILL 145.]
(Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Salt, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.— [BILL 145.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURmoved, after Clause 2, to insert the following clause:—
  (Particulars to be laid before the House as to proposals for composition of debts.)
  "No proposals to enter into any composition of any debts due on any locality shall be accepted by the Public Works Loans Commissioners until within one month after laying upon the Table of the House such a selection of the Papers relating to the Loan as will show, first, the of the Commissioners who granted the Loan; second, the conditions on which granted; third, the measures previous to agreeing to the Loan to inquire into the validity and amount of the rates mortgaged for its security, and as to the propriety of taking or dispensing with personal security; fourth, the inquiries made into the sufficiency and soundness of those securities to ensure the due and regular payment of the instalments with interest; fifth, the measures taken since the first default, to enforce the rights of the public both over the mortgaged rates, and to hold the individuals or authorities who obtained the public money responsible for the debt; and, sixth, an explanatory report as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the powers given in 'The Public Works Act, 1875,' to protect in the past the interests of the public, and in what respects needing amendment for the future loans, and only after the papers have remained upon the Table of the House for the one month without objection, that the debt may be then settled."
  MR. W. H. SMITHopposed the clause, and said the object could be attained in an equally effective and less objectionable manner.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

WINE AND BEERHOUSE ACT (1869) AMENDMENT BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend " The Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1869."
Resolution reported: — Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. STAVELEY HILL and Mr. MUNDELLA.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 177.]
House adjourned at half after One o'clock.